It's actually a mishmash of privatized, socialized, and nothing. It has been speculated that this very fact contributes to much of the extraordinary inefficiency. An interesting side-note while I'm on the topic... American middle-income families have seen their wages stagnate and even decrease since the 90's while employers have seen employee health insurance premiums consistently perform double digit annual increases.
by accepting man as the egotistical bastard he is, and appealing to the basest of desires: greed.
Well you got part of that right... but what about the consumers whose necks are being stepped on by the aforementioned egotistical bastards pursuing their basest of desires?
Lucky? Who needs luck? It's a rare person indeed that can't afford to go out on a half-million dollar limb to sue for the right to fair use of a dead person's work...
I suspect it may have to do with Google being perceived as permissive of unsanctioned modding--a thing of great concern for carriers. Up to this point Google has only had a very limited success penetrating the U.S. market with phones running Android. Google could be trying to bolster its image with carriers by stopping (limiting) rogue phones.
The more copyrights, patents, trademarks and the like are applied to all aspects of existence the less people will pay attention to them. People will largely treat them as meaningless and tread all over them even in areas generally considered legitimate.
I wonder if anyone has considered using the purchase of tires and re-treads as the foundation for taxation instead of fuel and/or millage based systems. It seems to me that one could get a wonderfully fair means of usage tax this way.
Thank you. You had to go and depress me with the truth again didn't you? If the "founding fathers" could have seen the end results of their work I honestly think they'd have put a musket to their heads.
The only way for a democracy to work is to have a strong majority of well educated and engaged citizenry. The only way for a totalitarian government to work is for it to consist wholly of well educated, selfless, empathetic leaders and bureaucrats. As far as I can tell, both are positions of unstable equilibrium and practically speaking unattainable. With that in mind... Anyone got a better idea?
As long as this is only being used to retrofit existing plants frankly I applaud them for thinking outside the box for once. This sounds like an excellent way to boost efficiency and mitigate the harm otherwise done. If this was used to justify new coal plants I think I'd be a bit more concerned...
Run the time line a little further. Who says we have to launch pre-fabbed units from earth? As for a market why I'd suspect all earth would find it handy not to have to rely on current land based technologies, particularly fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro. I suspect that beaming power to mobile ground platforms in remote locations and/or disaster areas would be incredibly handy. I also believe it would be quite useful for scientific outposts and colonies off-world. As I see it the better question to ask would be "who wouldn't want it?".
Why is it that people on/. who live and breath new technology always have such a hard time with new technology economics? Why is it so hard to understand that new technology R & D is obscenely expensive relative to the commoditized versions that eventually follow. If everything was left to visionless people who focused solely on short term economics we'd still be living in the technological dark ages with a miserable quality of life.
Before one nay-says, consider the benefits to society should the technology under discussion becomes an inexpensive commoditization.
Germany lines their highways with solar panels too. The difference is they don't drive on the damn things. They put them on the side in the already existing right of way. I don't get what the point of spending all that money so they can be driven on is. Aside from the obvious wear and tear, what about the fact that cars are covering up the panels? It's good that people are thinking outside the box but what happened to the reality check before we shell out money on such an impractical idea.
In other news, it has been reported that 98% of persons on death-row in prison have eaten a tomato at least once in their life where as only 5% report having eaten horse meat...
It would seem that you and many Slashdotters are assuming that the only people that eat poorly are the impoverished. If you've got a $20/week food budget you're going to have a tough go no matter what food you're shopping for. All the same, people in such positions can still do much better than generic Twinkies and cardboard pizza. The reality though is that of the overwhelming majority of Americans that eat poorly have junk food budgets that could very capability purchase healthy alternatives. These are the same people that have plenty of time to prepare quick simple meals.
What's the point of advertising missions to the ISS? The ISS is supposedly being decommissioned a little more than a year after the first manned test flights of Orion begin.
I'm going to have to call BS on that one. The money paid for Mt. Dew, Budwiser, Cheetos, Dominos, McDonalds, Marlboros , etc. could quite certainly be applied to the grocery bill and enable this demographic to pay for an all organic pantry/fridge. That said, that's an unnecessary extreme. I really do not understand where people come up with the notion that junk food is cheap. Have any of you seriously considered the cost of stocking the larder with Bud and Doritos compared with fruits, veggies, and slightly less processed foods? Anyone priced compared an extra-large pepperoni pizza and pop from Pizza Hut to a family pack of chicken, a bag of frozen veggies, and a quart of milk? I guarantee you'll come off with a much healthier meal for same if not less money if you stay away from the Hut. There is absolutely no reason why a person's food should have come in a prepackaged microwave-safe container.
More than anything this has to do with a self-perpetuating, learned lifestyle. Figure out and implement a means of dealing with this and you'll have the problem licked.
Why did Europe dump so much into the exploration and conquest of the New World? Where was the even remotely near term ROI on that? It was expensive as hell and the first couple generations of Europeans didn't see a drop. However, run the calendar on a while longer and you'll notice a good many things: vast improvements in ship logistics, short haul and trans-oceanic; establishment of mineral and other natural resource mining/harvesting on distant shores to replace increasingly scarce resources locally; establishment of trading partners who provided many things the likes of which never dreamed; etc. etc.
In the short term there's very little to gain if focused solely on economics. But those of us who advocate for NASA, and our presence in space particularly with regard to a human presence aren't thinking purely about economics for the short-term but in the spirit of adventure, of a sense of pride in accomplishment of that which seems impossible. Kennedy might have had ulterior motives in the moon program, but the American people, even people of the world took great encouragement, pride and joy the day Neal Armstrong stepped foot on the Moon. The Apollo program was something a nation could look to for inspiration and common purpose under a banner of peace during a time when threat of nuclear holocaust and the Vietnam were so very real.
In the long-term just as the New World was to the Europeans, space is a vast treasure trove of resources and riches but exponentially more so waiting for us to step off this rock we call Earth. We don't have all the needed technology, that which we do have is expensive. But as with anything the further we persevere the more we know, the more we can do, and the easier and cheaper we can do it. When are we going to stop saying we can't and start taking the necessary first steps so that we can? How many times has NASA had the financial rug pulled out from underneath them causing their programs and projects to collapse from a removal of funding mid-way through. Why do we have to keep going through the same cycle again and again of spending money to partially complete but never finish? Consider what we could have accomplished if even a fourth of such projects were funded through to completion.
Because it certainly has not had any impact on the orgy of irresponsible spending of President Obama and his fellow Democrats.
Bush had a really nice, and very unnecessary set of wars to fund as well as gifts to banks for making bad decisions. to the tune of nearly a couple trillion dollars last I heard. Obama's proposals may have a few dollars associated with them but lets not forget that Obama isn't proposing we spend these excessive sums on blowing craters in the sand or showering people and institutions with cash that under any other context would be branded criminals like his predecessor did. Obama's proposals at least have the potential for long term benefit to the tax-paying citizens of the U.S.
Electric vehicles aren't the same as your RC toy car. Batteries, while using similar compounds aren't really the same. Formulations are specialized for a flatter output curve through far more charge/discharge cycles than a mobile electronic device. Packaging is specialized for optimum and safe charge/discharge for the massively larger stacks. There are specialized charging systems and drive trains. The engineering in general have numerous considerations different from a traditional car or a cell phone.
Their technology is being stuffed into their own luxury sedan at about half the cost of the roadster, a next gen electric Daimler Smart car will be powered by their technology. It is trickling down, as in just about any automotive development, from the track to the street, luxury to common. Your concern, the electric vehicle battery will most certainly get cheaper. Right now there simply isn't much online manufacturing capacity, and the technology to produce them at scale is in its infancy. Power densities are continually improving. It is my understanding that the raw materials really aren't a dominant contributor to the cost. The raw materials are relatively plentiful, the cost is in manufacturing which almost always drops as production increases.
You also miss the point entirely. The roadster was never intended to be economical. It was intended as a tool to persuade the masses that electric is cool. It was intended to provide a flexible platform on which to develop their technology while retaining the financial flexibility afforded by a sexy roadster tailored to appeal to financially enabled early adopters. Their next vehicle, a luxury sedan, is built upon the technology developments made through their roadster project. The sedan is effectively half the price and is put within reach of many working professionals and also giving it economics not far removed from a Prius. In addition, they're now licensing (manufacturing?) their roadster developed technology to other manufacturers. They're following the traditional path of new technology developments. Early adoption of new technology almost never makes financial sense. The horse was most certainly more financially sensible than the Model T but without the early adopters of it you wouldn't have that $9,000 gas guzzling pile, just a lot more manure.
There are four basic things that are universal regardless of the interests and personalities you two bring to the relationship:
1. Love is a choice not an emotion. You might not like or be happy with the other person from one moment to the next but you must chose to love them anyway.
2. She WILL be a pain in your ass. You need to accept that.
3. You WILL be a pain in her ass. She needs to accept that.
4. The two of you must communicate readily, openly and with understanding 2 & 3. Never assume the other realizes they're being a pain in the ass. Never let passions overrule the fact that you love them and want an enjoyable life together.
Failure on any part by either of you WILL cause strife and division.
Slashdot Mirror
It's actually a mishmash of privatized, socialized, and nothing. It has been speculated that this very fact contributes to much of the extraordinary inefficiency. An interesting side-note while I'm on the topic... American middle-income families have seen their wages stagnate and even decrease since the 90's while employers have seen employee health insurance premiums consistently perform double digit annual increases.
by accepting man as the egotistical bastard he is, and appealing to the basest of desires: greed.
Well you got part of that right... but what about the consumers whose necks are being stepped on by the aforementioned egotistical bastards pursuing their basest of desires?
Lucky? Who needs luck? It's a rare person indeed that can't afford to go out on a half-million dollar limb to sue for the right to fair use of a dead person's work...
I suspect it may have to do with Google being perceived as permissive of unsanctioned modding--a thing of great concern for carriers. Up to this point Google has only had a very limited success penetrating the U.S. market with phones running Android. Google could be trying to bolster its image with carriers by stopping (limiting) rogue phones.
The more copyrights, patents, trademarks and the like are applied to all aspects of existence the less people will pay attention to them. People will largely treat them as meaningless and tread all over them even in areas generally considered legitimate.
...one could vote out of office the governor who appointed him.
You assume an educated, informed and engaged electorate. Shame on you...
I was under the impression the sale of used tires was illegal in most states. I'm surprised that's still allowed...
I wonder if anyone has considered using the purchase of tires and re-treads as the foundation for taxation instead of fuel and/or millage based systems. It seems to me that one could get a wonderfully fair means of usage tax this way.
Thank you. You had to go and depress me with the truth again didn't you? If the "founding fathers" could have seen the end results of their work I honestly think they'd have put a musket to their heads.
The only way for a democracy to work is to have a strong majority of well educated and engaged citizenry. The only way for a totalitarian government to work is for it to consist wholly of well educated, selfless, empathetic leaders and bureaucrats. As far as I can tell, both are positions of unstable equilibrium and practically speaking unattainable. With that in mind... Anyone got a better idea?
As long as this is only being used to retrofit existing plants frankly I applaud them for thinking outside the box for once. This sounds like an excellent way to boost efficiency and mitigate the harm otherwise done. If this was used to justify new coal plants I think I'd be a bit more concerned...
Run the time line a little further. Who says we have to launch pre-fabbed units from earth? As for a market why I'd suspect all earth would find it handy not to have to rely on current land based technologies, particularly fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro. I suspect that beaming power to mobile ground platforms in remote locations and/or disaster areas would be incredibly handy. I also believe it would be quite useful for scientific outposts and colonies off-world. As I see it the better question to ask would be "who wouldn't want it?".
Why is it that people on /. who live and breath new technology always have such a hard time with new technology economics? Why is it so hard to understand that new technology R & D is obscenely expensive relative to the commoditized versions that eventually follow. If everything was left to visionless people who focused solely on short term economics we'd still be living in the technological dark ages with a miserable quality of life.
Before one nay-says, consider the benefits to society should the technology under discussion becomes an inexpensive commoditization.
Germany lines their highways with solar panels too. The difference is they don't drive on the damn things. They put them on the side in the already existing right of way. I don't get what the point of spending all that money so they can be driven on is. Aside from the obvious wear and tear, what about the fact that cars are covering up the panels? It's good that people are thinking outside the box but what happened to the reality check before we shell out money on such an impractical idea.
Why won't you DIE?!?!
In other news, it has been reported that 98% of persons on death-row in prison have eaten a tomato at least once in their life where as only 5% report having eaten horse meat...
It would seem that you and many Slashdotters are assuming that the only people that eat poorly are the impoverished. If you've got a $20/week food budget you're going to have a tough go no matter what food you're shopping for. All the same, people in such positions can still do much better than generic Twinkies and cardboard pizza. The reality though is that of the overwhelming majority of Americans that eat poorly have junk food budgets that could very capability purchase healthy alternatives. These are the same people that have plenty of time to prepare quick simple meals.
What's the point of advertising missions to the ISS? The ISS is supposedly being decommissioned a little more than a year after the first manned test flights of Orion begin.
I'm going to have to call BS on that one. The money paid for Mt. Dew, Budwiser, Cheetos, Dominos, McDonalds, Marlboros , etc. could quite certainly be applied to the grocery bill and enable this demographic to pay for an all organic pantry/fridge. That said, that's an unnecessary extreme. I really do not understand where people come up with the notion that junk food is cheap. Have any of you seriously considered the cost of stocking the larder with Bud and Doritos compared with fruits, veggies, and slightly less processed foods? Anyone priced compared an extra-large pepperoni pizza and pop from Pizza Hut to a family pack of chicken, a bag of frozen veggies, and a quart of milk? I guarantee you'll come off with a much healthier meal for same if not less money if you stay away from the Hut. There is absolutely no reason why a person's food should have come in a prepackaged microwave-safe container.
More than anything this has to do with a self-perpetuating, learned lifestyle. Figure out and implement a means of dealing with this and you'll have the problem licked.
Why did Europe dump so much into the exploration and conquest of the New World? Where was the even remotely near term ROI on that? It was expensive as hell and the first couple generations of Europeans didn't see a drop. However, run the calendar on a while longer and you'll notice a good many things: vast improvements in ship logistics, short haul and trans-oceanic; establishment of mineral and other natural resource mining/harvesting on distant shores to replace increasingly scarce resources locally; establishment of trading partners who provided many things the likes of which never dreamed; etc. etc.
In the short term there's very little to gain if focused solely on economics. But those of us who advocate for NASA, and our presence in space particularly with regard to a human presence aren't thinking purely about economics for the short-term but in the spirit of adventure, of a sense of pride in accomplishment of that which seems impossible. Kennedy might have had ulterior motives in the moon program, but the American people, even people of the world took great encouragement, pride and joy the day Neal Armstrong stepped foot on the Moon. The Apollo program was something a nation could look to for inspiration and common purpose under a banner of peace during a time when threat of nuclear holocaust and the Vietnam were so very real.
In the long-term just as the New World was to the Europeans, space is a vast treasure trove of resources and riches but exponentially more so waiting for us to step off this rock we call Earth. We don't have all the needed technology, that which we do have is expensive. But as with anything the further we persevere the more we know, the more we can do, and the easier and cheaper we can do it. When are we going to stop saying we can't and start taking the necessary first steps so that we can? How many times has NASA had the financial rug pulled out from underneath them causing their programs and projects to collapse from a removal of funding mid-way through. Why do we have to keep going through the same cycle again and again of spending money to partially complete but never finish? Consider what we could have accomplished if even a fourth of such projects were funded through to completion.
Because it certainly has not had any impact on the orgy of irresponsible spending of President Obama and his fellow Democrats.
Bush had a really nice, and very unnecessary set of wars to fund as well as gifts to banks for making bad decisions. to the tune of nearly a couple trillion dollars last I heard. Obama's proposals may have a few dollars associated with them but lets not forget that Obama isn't proposing we spend these excessive sums on blowing craters in the sand or showering people and institutions with cash that under any other context would be branded criminals like his predecessor did. Obama's proposals at least have the potential for long term benefit to the tax-paying citizens of the U.S.
Some how I think the technological aspects will be the least burdensome to implement...
Electric vehicles aren't the same as your RC toy car. Batteries, while using similar compounds aren't really the same. Formulations are specialized for a flatter output curve through far more charge/discharge cycles than a mobile electronic device. Packaging is specialized for optimum and safe charge/discharge for the massively larger stacks. There are specialized charging systems and drive trains. The engineering in general have numerous considerations different from a traditional car or a cell phone.
Their technology is being stuffed into their own luxury sedan at about half the cost of the roadster, a next gen electric Daimler Smart car will be powered by their technology. It is trickling down, as in just about any automotive development, from the track to the street, luxury to common. Your concern, the electric vehicle battery will most certainly get cheaper. Right now there simply isn't much online manufacturing capacity, and the technology to produce them at scale is in its infancy. Power densities are continually improving. It is my understanding that the raw materials really aren't a dominant contributor to the cost. The raw materials are relatively plentiful, the cost is in manufacturing which almost always drops as production increases.
...but they make no financial sense. $109,000???
You also miss the point entirely. The roadster was never intended to be economical. It was intended as a tool to persuade the masses that electric is cool. It was intended to provide a flexible platform on which to develop their technology while retaining the financial flexibility afforded by a sexy roadster tailored to appeal to financially enabled early adopters. Their next vehicle, a luxury sedan, is built upon the technology developments made through their roadster project. The sedan is effectively half the price and is put within reach of many working professionals and also giving it economics not far removed from a Prius. In addition, they're now licensing (manufacturing?) their roadster developed technology to other manufacturers. They're following the traditional path of new technology developments. Early adoption of new technology almost never makes financial sense. The horse was most certainly more financially sensible than the Model T but without the early adopters of it you wouldn't have that $9,000 gas guzzling pile, just a lot more manure.
There are four basic things that are universal regardless of the interests and personalities you two bring to the relationship:
1. Love is a choice not an emotion. You might not like or be happy with the other person from one moment to the next but you must chose to love them anyway.
2. She WILL be a pain in your ass. You need to accept that.
3. You WILL be a pain in her ass. She needs to accept that.
4. The two of you must communicate readily, openly and with understanding 2 & 3. Never assume the other realizes they're being a pain in the ass. Never let passions overrule the fact that you love them and want an enjoyable life together.
Failure on any part by either of you WILL cause strife and division.
Yes